Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Jonathan Aizen Date: Aug 6, 2003 6:03am
Forum: etree Subject: To FTP downloaders

So I looked and saw that about 110 people are downloading via FTP right now.

I'm curious as to why this is so. You're almost certain to get (much, much) faster download speeds if you use FreeCache. Your feedback on why you're using FTP instead of downloading from the Web using FreeCache would be much appreciated,

Jon

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jam Date: Aug 6, 2003 6:36am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

I'm pulling um2003-06-19 right now from ftp at an average of 20-25 kbps. When I tried freecache (that is the zip file correct?), it was pulling it at 11 kbps or less, which would take about 24 hours or so. I have been having this problem before with freecache, but have used it at other times in the past and it was pretty quick...hope this helps...

Jamie

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jonathan Aizen Date: Aug 6, 2003 11:21am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

Okay - I appreciate that feedback. I'm pretty perplexed as to why HTTP would go slower for you than FTP would. I guess, however, that this is not an uncommon response - i.e. you're not the only one who claims FTP works faster for them than HTTP.

** Jon scratches head and thinks **

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Aug 7, 2003 2:38am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

I've been d/l via ftp at home lately because I recently installed a new browser version that crashes itself or the whole computer every half hour or so (haven't found the incompatibility yet, arg). AFAIK I can't resume freecache from a fatal browser crash, so I get the shows in bits and pieces from ftp.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: - j Date: Aug 7, 2003 3:34pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

I always try to grab shows with the "freecache" first but as previously stated, I get better results using FTP. Maybe if there was a way of knowing a show was sitting on one of the "freecache" servers ahead of time, some sort of note on the "show detatils" page, you'd see more users on "freecache". Maybe saying something about faster d/l speeds can be found here. I have tried several "freecache" downloads where I'm the first, but I've had too many die somewhere in the transfer never to resume [I've tried many times to get an aborted transfer to resume, no luck].

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: MelodyISMYdestiny Date: Aug 8, 2003 11:59am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

I've tried Freecache, but half the time I wind up with corrupted files. Speeds were very fast, but what's the point if I have to re-download 1/2 the shows?
Of the new downloading options - IAFM seemed to be much more reliable as far as errors were concerned. It could also resume.
I've been sticking to FTP as well.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jonathan Aizen Date: Aug 8, 2003 12:13pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

So it seems that it's worthwhile to continue the development of IAFM so that it works with Free Cache. Particularly users are experiencing trouble with resuming, and I think IAFM might help people.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Richbob Date: Aug 8, 2003 3:20pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

I agree with the posters directly above. I have always had FreeCache work fine with shows already able to come at very high speeds, but with ones coming at lower speeds downloading the big .zip file I often have them either time out or otherwise result in errors. I've gone back to using IAFM fairly often for shows not coming at blazing speeds simply because it can resume.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cabbage Date: Aug 11, 2003 1:19pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

FreeCache is the bomb. I get 15 - 35 from the website. Using FreeCache and Download Accelerator on my cable modem at home I get between 635 - 815!!! I downloaded a couple entire Zwan shows in 15 minutes!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kwaved Date: Aug 6, 2003 12:54pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

The problem I have with freecache is that you can not resume an interupted download, which is a frequent occurence. The couple of times I did pull a freecache download the zip file was corrupted, ie not complete. And as far I as know can not be resumed like FTP can.

So until those bugs are worked out I will always use FTP. Plus my FTP client is nice and manageable with all my ups and downs in one place.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: denance Date: Aug 13, 2003 2:04am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

For me, 9 times out of 10 I dont see any speed improvements with FreeCache. Someone mentioned being able to see whether a show is already on a FreeCache server - that would be nice.

Resuming downloads is not an issue for me, since I can do so using the wget command on linux.

-Mike

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Tribe Date: Aug 6, 2003 6:51am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

Sometimes, although by no means always, some shows aren't on "free-cache" (not sure how to explain it...some shows' url will say "freecache" while others will say "etreexx"). Those shows that "aren't" on freecache download quicker for me on ftp.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jonathan Aizen Date: Aug 6, 2003 7:17am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

Okay, so for those that don't say FreeCache the reason is it is for **extremely** new shows - shows approved within the last 5 hours.

Regardless of whether or not a show has made it to a FreeCache yet, downloading via the link on the website will help other users get faster speeds, whereas downloading via FTP will not.

So this might explain a small percentage of downloads that end up going over FTP. What about the rest? I'm real curious. Is it a convenience thing? I would like to figure out a way to give users whatever they like about FTP, but using FreeCache.

Jon

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Tribe Date: Aug 6, 2003 9:41am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

"Okay, so for those that don't say FreeCache the reason is it is for **extremely** new shows - shows approved within the last 5 hours."

I dunno...I could be wrong, but it seems that I've tried to download shows that were not "5 hours old" (so to speak), and found that they didn't say freecache either. Can't point to an example at the moment.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jonathan Aizen Date: Aug 6, 2003 11:18am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

Okay - if that's the case, I think there might be a bug somewhere. Next time you run across something like that, please post and let me know. I greatly appreciate it :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Tribe Date: Aug 6, 2003 12:49pm
Forum: etree Subject: An Example (Was Re: To FTP downloaders)

I'm downloading this show los1997-09-06 with my download manager (iGetter 1.9.5). The url for the show appears as http://etree10.archive.org/5/audio/los1997-09-06_lhsb.shnf.zip. The speed is at between 11 and 13 Kb/s. If I use ftp, I'll probably get close to 20 Kb/s. I try to use freecache whenever possible....amazing speeds....but it's never been available for everything.

Tribe

This post was modified by Tribe on 2003-08-06 19:49:45

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Tribe Date: Aug 6, 2003 12:59pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: An Example (Was Re: To FTP downloaders)

On the other hand, if I go to the download options page for the los1997-09-06 show, and enter each individual file into my download manager, I get speeds between 15-20 Kb/s, (sometimes it creeps up to as much as 35) which is right around what I'd get using ftp.

Tribe

This post was modified by Tribe on 2003-08-06 19:59:02

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Tribe Date: Aug 7, 2003 12:31pm
Forum: etree Subject: On The Other Hand (Was Re: An Example (Was Re: To FTP downloaders))

I'm downloading the Mason Jennings 2-21-03 show, again using iGetter 1.9.5 by loading each file individually from the download options page, and all of the files have a url that says "freecache" with the exception of mason2003-02-21d1t01.shn, the md5 files and the info file.

Tribe

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: davidw987 Date: Aug 6, 2003 9:36am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

Jon,

I prefer the FTP because it can resume when the download is paused or halted for some reason. I can't figure out how to do that while pulling down a 1GB zip file.

I can also schedule my FTP session to kick off at night. The high speed isn't as much an issue. I can wait a day for the show.

David

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jonathan Aizen Date: Aug 6, 2003 11:19am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

David - Thanks for the feedback.

I wonder what option we could use to resolve this. I am considering some more development of IAFM to support FreeCache (as well as some more features).

Thanks for the feedback,

Jon

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: NickDiegel Date: Aug 6, 2003 11:51am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: To FTP downloaders

I just find it easier to have all the servers on my client and just select them easier that way...

I guess it's the fact that once I start to use somethin, I'd just rather continue it that way...